This tag is associated with 1 post

Passport Act, 1967: s.10(3)(e) – Impounding of passport of – NRI – FIR against – During search operation, passport seized – Retained by CBI under orders of Court – HELD: Retention of passport by CBI is clearly illegal as it has not been done in conformity with provisions of law and there is no order of the passport authorities u/s 10(3)(e) or by Central Government u/s 10-A to impound passport – Passport could not have been impounded except by passport authority in accordance with law – Passport Act being a specific one and s.104 Cr.P.C. being a general provision, by necessary implication power of court to impound any document or thing produced before it would exclude passport – Expressions `seizure’ and `impounding’ – Connotation of – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.102 and 104 – Interpretation of Statutes. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.102 – Seizure of document by police – HELD: Police may have power to seize a passport, it does not have power to retain or impound the same because that can only be done by passport authority u/s 10(3) of the Passport Act – If police seizes a passport u/s 102 of Code, it must send the same along with a letter to passport authority stating as to why seized passport deserves to be impounded u/s 10 of Passport Act – It is then for passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not – Passport to be returned to the owner – Passport Act, 1967 – ss. 10(3)(E) AND 10-A. Words and Phrases: Expressions `seizure’ and `impounding’ – Connotation of in the context of Passport Act, 1967 and Cr. P.C. Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Asstt. Passport Officer (1967) 3 SCR 525; Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another (1978) 1 SCC 248; Dam Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others AIR 1966 SC 135; Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others 1999(7) SCC 76; and Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1999 SC 3125; and State of Orissa Vs. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269 – referred to. Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (2nd Edition); and Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh (9th Edition) – referred to. Harish N. Salve, Sidharth Luthra, Mukul Rohtagi, Sandeep Kapur, Ruchin Midha, R.N. Karanjawala and Manik Karanjawala for the Appellant. A. Sharan, A.S.G., A. Mariarputham and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. =2008 AIR 1414, 2008(1 )SCR1212, 2008(3 )SCC674 , 2008(2 )SCALE46 , 2008(2 )JT174

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 179 of 2008 PETITIONER: SURESH NANDA RESPONDENT: C.B.I. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/01/2008 BENCH: P.P. NAOLEKAR & MARKANDEY KATJU JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R [ ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(CRL.) 3408 OF 2007 ] 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant claims to be a non-resident Indian settled in United Kingdom for … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,030 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com